So is the legally entered judgment always 100% true? I doubt it. Tthe Paras involved say the report was a whitewash (as expected), all i'm saying is that there are two sides to every story and we should let sleeping dogs lie. It would serve no good purpose having a murder trial because imho, no one would be convicted.
On 29 February 1999 the Attorney General, the Rt Hon John Morris QC MP (now Lord Morris) responded to a request from the Saville Inquiry that he should give an undertaking to witnesses making evidence available to the Inquiry as to the status of that evidence in the following terms:- âAn undertaking in respect of any person who provides evidence to the Inquiry, that no evidence he or she may give before the Inquiry relating to the events of Sunday 30 January 1972, whether orally or by written statement, nor any written statement made preparatory to giving evidence, nor any document produced by that person to the Inquiry, will be used to the prejudice of that person in any criminal proceedings (or for that purpose of investigating or deciding whether to bring such proceedings) except proceedings where he or she is charged with having given false evidence in the course of this Inquiry or with having conspired with, aided, abetted, counsel procured, suborned or incited any other person to do so. http://www.ppsni.gov.uk/SiteDocumen...t Following Publication of Saville Report.pdf
No, the legally entered judgement is not always correct. We saw that with Widgery. However when I call these men liars, I am supported by a legally entered decision. The paras say it was a whitewash, but they are, in the eyes of the law, discredited liars. It is not just the word of the people of Derry against the paratroop regiment, their accounts are supported by international news crews and independent ballistics experts. As I have said, it isn't my decision to let sleeping dogs lie. The families came to terms with the idea that there would be no prosecutions if they told the truth. If they had have told the truth then that would have been the end of it. Demonstrably they did not. If Saville says they lied and a decision has been taken to institute an investigation (where an undertaking had been given to only persue a prosecution where lies had bern told) then I feel I am on solid grounds to call them liars and they should face the consequences of that. These men are murderers. Once again I will say that I do not expect them to stand trial for murder. That has already been demonstrated. I expect there to be an investigation into their lies.
And for the record, the testimony of the paras was not ignored. I am surprised at you Dev. Saville was extremely liberal in his terms of reference in this inquiry. The report forensically disseminated what happened. The accounts givem by the paras did not stack up, hence this investigation. It is almost as though Saville never happened. If you accept these men shot innocent civilians, then you accept they lied to both the Widgery and Saville and committed perjury on two occasions. If you accept they perjured themselves then you accept they are liars.
In an internet kind of way, I'm hearing echoes of Paisley Who cares. Some dullards bit the bad end of some lead-tipped velocity Toodle pip
Dullards started to march down a route they were told not to. El Franco ordered his bhoys out onto the streets to create public disorder. Young, inexperienced Para decides that his life is in danger so unleashes the 7.62. Job done. Back to the NAAFI for a pint and a cold pasty.
According to the wording of the promise all witnesses were given, only people charged with lying in the course of this Inquiry can face criminal proceedings. I may be reading it wrong but it also says any evidence they gave cannot be used against them. It's more years of legal argument which will result in nothing very much. What would be the purpose of a murder trial where even if some people were convicted they would still not do any time? I don't see any point, the families know they are murderers, you know they are murderers, in fact I would say that most people think the same way. Do we need another massively expensive investigation and trial to prove what people already know?
I never said the Paras evidence was ignored, the men involved said that, I am telling you their side of the story - which natuarally is at odds with the general findings of the Saville report.
That is a valid position to take. What I have said is that some of the family members wish to see prosecutions against these proven liars and murderers. The same people were prepared to accept the immunity afforded the paras if they told the truth. They did not do that. Any statement they made cannot be used in evidence against them but any evidence adduced or relating to it can be. That seems fair enough to me. The argument appears to me to be that trials and subsequent punishments are pointless because we know who did it. Would you apply that principle to other crimes? We know these men are not rehabilitated because they lied 40 years ago and they lied 10 years ago.
and I apologise for saying you said that their evidence was ignored. I shall pay closer attention in future.
How many unsolved murders are there in Northern Ireland at this moment in time? A vast number i'd hazard and some of them far more recent than this particular case. I have no doubt the families want closure, I would too but thousands of people have bitten their tongues and moved on from heinours events which affected members of their family. Doubtless they will never forget but they can forgive, some have. The problems with a trial for murder are many and varied, some I beleive are insurmountable. I'm no lawyer or Barrister but i've a mind I could convince a jury to harbour severe doubts on eye witness testimony gathered 30 some years after the fact. Hence the reason it will be a waste of time in my opinion. If the men were cleared, doubtless there would be more cries of outrage and calls for another expensive investigation or report on what lessons can be learned from such an obvious wild goose chase. If they convicted then they would appeal and immediately be free on bail while we await another trial. And, as I have said it is exteremely unlikely they would do any jail time because of the Good Friday agreement.
I am not talking about a murder investigation. I am talking about perjury. A serious crime with serious penalties. In that instance the GFA is not relevant and in any case I don't believe the paras would qualify as their actions could not be described as being politically motivated. I keep saying that the families accepted the amnesty on the basis that they were told the truth. The paras got their immunity and continued to lie.
Who really cares on here, except for an unemployed Oirish bawbag (who was born in London ) No Paras will be prosecuted as no-one is interested, especially in these times of austerity. Unlucky, bawbags
FFS, you see this millionaire lifestyle you lead? Why on earth have you been on here till gone 1am Yes, the Paras won't and shouldn't face any court of law to convict them of murder. At the end of the day, they slotted some dole-claimants therefore saving the government of the day, what, about £150k (Rough estimate) a year Bye bye
